My whole thing, going to this is. Maybe they could not have forseen that technology would advance, and the like in the world of firearms when they wrote the second amendment (semi-auto/full-auto rifles and handguns) thats fine. But also, on that same foot, they would not see how technology could impact the first amendment (Television, Radio, Internet) as well. Why do the people allow restrictions, bans, and legislation on the second amendment because its not what the forefathers would have forseen, and in the same breath, go psychotic when the first amendment starts to get even mildly restricted? If you are going to allow one amendment to adapt to changes in technology, then you should allow ALL of them to adapt to changes in technology, not just the ones that make you “feel good”

What some people on the left seem unaware of is that the idea of the machine gun dates back to at least Leonardo Davinci (even longer if you include the Chinese repeating crossbow): Davinci lacked the technology required to make the tools and material necessary to make his designs into reality.

Additionally multiple barrel or multiple chamber firearms are essentially co-temporal with the Revolutionary and ante-bellum periods.

The Ferguson rifle is one the first examples of a successful breech-loading design.

I forget the name of the rifle and it’s inventor: there was a rifle that existed pre-revolution that had over a dozen chambers on a conveyor belt arrangement, the shooter manually advanced the next chamber to the barrel, pulled back the flintlock, and fired.

The bottom line on this topic is this. At the time of our Founding Fathers writing the 2nd Amendment, civilians had the same, if not better, weapons than the military. And that was exactly their intention.

Civilian control of the military The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent﻿ the disproportionate strength that a country’s military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of power in order to enforce the civilian control of the military.